Smoking Ban at Casinos Cost Illinois $200 Million Last Year
Advocates of imposing non-smoking laws on casinos in Illinois claimed that gambling venues around the country had not suffered lost revenues when instituting bans, an assertion that has been cast in doubt by lack of statistical proof. Now, economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis have released analysis that says Illinois lost over $200 million instate and local revenue by placing the smoking ban on state-licensed casinos.Not only were patron numbers down at the nine Illinois casinos since the ban was effected, but casinos located near other states without intrusive smoking policies suffered the most, says a study published in the Regional Economist. Illinois casinos dropped in earnings by an average of 9 percent, with border gaming venues taking the biggest hits, while casinos in smoking-optional states like Missouri, Indiana, and Iowa saw revenues rising.
And the problem was not isolated to keeping customers instate, says the report.
“Those that did go gambled less when they were there,” Thomas Garrett, a co-author of the paper, told the State Journal-Register. Statistics show that the Par-A-Dice Casino in East Peoria, which sits over a hundred miles from any competitor, saw a 6 percent rise in attendance but a 9 percent decline in income.
Some smoking foes still proclaim the economy is the only cause of the disappearing revenue, but that fails to explain why the phenomenon is isolated to Illinois.
Tom Swoik, head of the Illinois Casino Gaming Association, said the new figures are in line with what his group foresaw. Swoik says that the smoking ban will combine with economic woes to cost the state over a half-billion dollars in the next two years.
“I suspect it’s going to be a long, long time, if ever, that we’ll totally recoup the losses because of the smoking ban,” added Swoik.
Recent Comments
| Posted by: marbee | When: 08/15/2009 09:16:03 PM EST |
| If our country was a democracy, 51% of the people could decide they want to kill the other 49%. That is why our nation is a Constitutional Republic, to protect the minority, in this case, smokers! These days laws are enacted by polls. We need to get rid of these lawmakers who keep giving voters anything they want and elect those that abide by the U.S. Constitution. I think all bar owners should file a class action lawsuit against the state for trampling their private property rights! Bans absolutely decimate the hospitality industry. These are prohibitionis thugs enacting these laws! | |
| Posted by: sheila | When: 08/16/2009 08:13:57 AM EST |
| Simple. My friends and I do NOT go to casinos who ban smoking. Sorry. We realize it's not your fault. But when we have time and money to recreate we go places that allow smoking. | |
| Posted by: Michael J. McFadden | When: 08/16/2009 11:17:25 AM EST |
| Antismoking extremists always like to blame the economy for all the woes that follow smoking bans, but there is just one problem with that game: It's a lie. Before England banned smoking their pubs were closing at a rate of 3 per week. Immediately after the ban that rate shot to over 30 a week, then over 40, all before the world economic woes hit. In Minnesota bans were phased in over several years. Check the graph at: http://arclightzero.web.officelive.com/Documents/MNGraph.pdf to see very clearly and simply exactly what smoking bans did to their charitable gambling income. And while the graph doesn't show it, when it is extended into 2008 the losses of 2007 simply continues and gets worse throughout the year. When the "WorldWide Economic Meltdown" hits at the end of 2008 it's barely more than a blip at the end of the absolute disaster caused by the years of bans. Smoking bans are built on lies, lies about the economic effects of bans and lies about the "deadly threat" of wisps of secondary smoke in decently ventilated facilities. Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" | |
| Posted by: virgilk | When: 08/17/2009 02:57:31 PM EST |
| Some may be interested in this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1-bX2SmU-c&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fbanthebanwisconsin.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F03%2F11%2Fsecond-hand-smoke-bs%2F&feature=player_embedded Some will see and hear nothing. | |
| Posted by: Rocky | When: 09/07/2009 01:12:18 PM EST |
| I admit it is not just the economy, but it sure didn't make the situation any better. Over time, less people will smoke and less state money will be used to pay for their medical expenses. Will it make up for all of the loses, no, but this is one of the few things worth taking a loss for.For people who do not smoke the experience is unbelievably better. It also is more safe as the person smoking is in less danger of cancer than the people around them who don't. If it wasn't such a health issue it would be a valid argument. I wouldn't consider smoking a minority though. A person doesn't pick their race or sex.Usually, you don't get to pick mental or physically disabilities either. Smoking is something a person chooses to do and accepts its downfalls. Non-smokers were the minority at one point if a person goes by the smokers are a minority concept. I understand that older people did not know the downfalls of smoking when they started, but by now they do and must either make the decision to begin the difficult process of stopping, or accept the health difficulties they are putting on themselves in the future. Neither choice is easy, but one is deadly. A person shouldn't complain either way. | |
| Posted by: Rocky | When: 09/07/2009 01:23:38 PM EST |
| Here's some information backing what I said. http://healthmad.com/health/second-hand-smoke-worse-than-smokers/ Used video as well. http://www1.umn.edu/perio/tobacco/secondhandsmoke.html http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422 I admit I'm being highly one sided, however, there was no reliable site I could find that said that secondhand smoke was not a health hazard. If anyone finds a reliable site that does, please post it. | |
| Posted by: Klaus K | When: 12/15/2009 04:56:23 PM EST |
| Here's some reading for you, Rocky :-) http://www.epi-perspectives.com/content/4/1/11 http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.215/news_detail.asp http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/yul55a99/pdf http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/koa01c00/pdf http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)73617-5/fulltext http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/phm55c00/pdf http://cagecanada.blogspot.com/2009/01/discours-du-pr-molimard-speech.html http://cagecanada.homestead.com/AnalyseCritiqueMolimard.html http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/020405/med_280798.shtml http://dengulenegl.dk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/the-bliley-statement-1993.pdf http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hby83e00/pdf http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/books/passive_smoke/ http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mey92a99/pdf | |
| Posted by: Michael J. McFadden | When: 10/17/2010 09:21:26 AM EST |
| Unfortunately the page holding that referenced graph for Minnesota has been erased. It is reproduced with an update though on page 18 of the freely readable, downloadable, and printable "New Stiletto: Lies Behind The Smoking Bans" at: http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/257.html Apologies for the inconvenience, but the Stiletto has other good information as well. Michael J. McFadden, Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" | |
| Posted by: markw | When: 03/07/2011 05:39:34 AM EST |
| http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2009 /03/worldwide-economic-meltdown-and.htm l | |
| Posted by: markw | When: 03/07/2011 06:07:45 AM EST |
| Major effect of smoking bans around the globe http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2009/03/worldwide-economic-meltdown-and.html | |
| Posted by: Alexa Maureen | When: 03/15/2011 06:26:14 PM EST |
| Wow! $200 million dollar lost? It's something to be think of carefully, remember gamblers always share the common interest - poker, alcohol, cigarettes and women. If you banned smoking inside a casino house, for sure that certain casinos' profit will decrease, and that's what happened to Illinois. As you might notice, a player on a poker table will either smoke or drink. What would a gambler do if smoking is prohibited, drinking is not a good option? Chew a gum? Hmm not bad. kindly take a peak at http://www.onlinecasinomansion.com/ | |
| Posted by: Alexa Maureen | When: 03/15/2011 06:27:38 PM EST |
| Wow! $200 million dollar lost? It's something to be think of carefully, remember gamblers always share the common interest - poker, alcohol, cigarettes and women. If you banned smoking inside a casino house, for sure that certain casinos' profit will decrease, and that's what happened to Illinois. As you might notice, a player on a poker table will either smoke or drink. What would a gambler do if smoking is prohibited, drinking is not a good option? Chew a gum? Hmm not bad. kindly take a peak at http://www.onlinecasinomansion.com/ | |
